My thoughts. But even the pirates have limits. I'll store what meets my interests and tastes and both my life and my storage space are limited. The space prevents me from keeping everything that I would if I had unlimited storage and when I die my collection may be simply scrapped by my heirs who may not share the same interests or may not be into file-sharing. Pirates may help save a few decades or even 1 or 2 hundred years worth of content but it takes timeless institutions like libraries or museums to actually do the heavy-lifting.
That's what I mean. If they are already paying for their connections then this shit already makes no sense (except for bought, corrupt politicians of course). If they are going to pay for the privilege of using a connection then they shouldn't pay further. I wonder if the ISPs would like to handle Netflix bw costs...
Re: If they don't want your product, make 'em pay for it anyway
Many people upgraded their connections because of Netflix so maybe the ISPs want to pay a tax to thank Netflix too?
Also, Netflix couls agree to the demands as long as the ISPs offer speeds that will allow at least 4 devices to watch 4k content in a single household simultaneously. This will guarantee such tax will only be paid in the next millennium.
Wow. Harper can't go away soon enough. My condolences to our Canadian friends.
The irony is that some views and warnings that were considered extreme 30 years ago became reality now (see droughts and extreme environmental effects). We have also been warned about the police state that was forming in many western countries. Is it too late?
Hmmm, it means the open hardware scene is maturing, which is a good thing even if its puberty is somewhat turbulent. Hopefully we'll see cheaper and more trustworthy hardware (ie: no backdoors or proprietary wizardry).
Instead of locking the phones they could simply add a cancellation fee that includes a percentage of the phone proportional to how many months the person still has till the end of the contract. Locking should be forbidden by law.
That said, it's very important to remember that we can probably trust that companies rushing head first toward vast new revenue generation opportunities are spending the time and resources necessary to ensure consumer privacy is at the very top of their list of priorities.
I'm giving this part a funny vote, I laughed loudly now ;)
Have a seat while you wait. Just legalizing marijuana was a steep uphill battle so one can just imagine the rest. And even if it is legal, there are so many restrictions on who, where, how and how much one can produce marijuana that the entire purpose of making the thing legal and tackle the drug cartels goes down the drain.
lmao maybe you are right and he could have been polite but I know it is you just attacking the strawman Mike in your head AND everyone that doesn't buy into your delusions but your arguments would be well received if you actually based them on facts and gave proper reasoning. Try it sometime!
That said, nobody said he is abandoning the patents, not even the man himself. He will retain them and it's wise to have patents these days as defensive measures against trolls. Which reinforces the notion that patents are actually a dead weight that must be carried just in case.
Tesla isn’t breaking any new ground.
You seem to forget the VHS technology from JVC. They decided not to litigate or charge licenses. Guess who went on to make a lot of money and become the standard? Hit: not the makers of Betamax. As for the cross-license nonsense, READ THE GODDAMN ARTICLE. I'll help you with this one (quote from the article):
Reporter: Is there a licensing process?
Musk: No. You just use them. Which I think is better because then we don't need to get into any kind of discussions or whatever. So we don't know. I think you'll see it in the cars that come out, should they choose to use them.
Where did he promise not to sue without condition?
He stated publicly that Tesla is not suing and there's no license needed. This can be used if Tesla tries to sue. Of course this was also noted in the article. Apparently you can't comprehend what you read.
An open source license is not a contract. If it’s a contract, where’s the consideration?
Yes it is. You accept the terms when you use and/or modify it. The terms are quite loose and provide a lot of freedom depending on which open source model they are using (there are quite a few).
Next time just politely disagree and explain yourself. I’m happy to back up what I say.
Ah the irony. We are waiting the day you'll actually provide explanations that aren't the product of your brain farts.
I know Techdirt brings out the worst in people, myself included at times, but let’s rise above it and have a nice chat. Deal?
it remains to be seen whether the Chinese authorities manage to impose real-name registration on all services, or whether this will turn out to be just the latest in a long string of failures
The Wester countries know all the censorship and the Human Rights violations in China and yet they still do business with them. Because they are not that different from China even with all those empty 'high ground' talks. And money speaks louder than Human Rights it seems.